Unpopular opinion: The USSR was a good countryWatch

(Original post by lastlullabyy)
And USSR was not a corrupt state at all... where it only mattered not what you knew but WHO you knew.

I’m going to leave it there as seems like we have completely opposite views.

We do. Your country really isn't about free speech though after the Soviets, considering you've literally banned the Hammer and Sickle. Can you actually tell me about your experiences under the Polish Socialist Republic though, because all you've referenced so far is the Solidarity movement in 89', which of course was part of wider dissent in that year.

The problem is, is that there was no actual revolution in Poland, east germany, hungary etc which led to them becoming communist. these countries were effectively occupied by the soviet union. That's never a good idea. And so whilst i support the soviet union as a country, I don't support how they continued to occupy these countries.

(Original post by lastlullabyy)
And excuse my laughter, but what wars would you class as “legal”? 😂 if you say “illegal wars” then surely that stipulates that some wars ARE legal... curious, how does that work?

Illegal war is like an oxymoron.

Not at all. As the United Nations Charter makes clear, there are legitimate justifications for pursuing armed conflict: particularly self-defence and in line with the binding agreement of the United Nations Security Council in furtherance of the aims of its organisation.

Some wars are legal, some are illegal. In terms of individual culpability, there is also international criminal law - which makes waging a war of aggression a recognised crime.

Of course, here you'll probably find these phrases thrown about by the sort of folk who carry on with the conclusion that any war they don't like is "illegal". Which, of course, they generally aren't.

(Original post by kali8603)
Soviet union fell because of bourgeousis nationalism in the republics, and Gorbachev liberalising everything. The countries it occupied were occupied before by the Nazis. I don't support either in that sense. Standard of living for the average russian wasn't as good as western standards, but east has always been behind west. There was no industrial revolution in eastern europe. Living conditions to this day in eastern europe, now all capitalist, is still behind the west.

You have lot of history to learn.
The soviet union failed.
You argument about it being ok to occupy E European countries against their will because the Nazis made it ok by occupying them before is rather alarming.

Is the standard of living for Russians better today or back when it was the USSR?
What were the freedoms and human rights like back under the USSR?
Whose fault was the stagnation of E Europe? Maybe their Russian occupiers?
Comparing living standards to the west actually supports not being occupied by the USSR.
What were the living standards and political freedoms for the E Bloc counties under the USSR?

(Original post by L i b)
Not at all. As the United Nations Charter makes clear, there are legitimate justifications for pursuing armed conflict: particularly self-defence and in line with the binding agreement of the United Nations Security Council in furtherance of the aims of its organisation.

Some wars are legal, some are illegal. In terms of individual culpability, there is also international criminal law - which makes waging a war of aggression a recognised crime.

Of course, here you'll probably find these phrases thrown about by the sort of folk who carry on with the conclusion that any war they don't like is "illegal". Which, of course, they generally aren't.

Oh really? The war in Iraq, was illegal for a start. The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars was also questionable, considering that it bombed civilian targets and even the Chinese embassy.

(Original post by kali8603)
It's just in general. In the d -day celebrations, Russia was not invited despite contributing the most deaths (as did China). Yet literal Nazi puppets at the time such as Slovakia and Greece were.

Maybe thats because Russia didnt take part in the D Day landings? Do you even know what they were?

(Original post by kali8603)
Oh really? The war in Iraq, was illegal for a start. The NATO intervention in the Yugoslav wars was also questionable, considering that it bombed civilian targets and even the Chinese embassy.

If you manage to progress to A level History then you have a lot to learn if you intend on getting a high grade.

(Original post by 999tigger)
You have lot of history to learn.
The soviet union failed.
You argument about it being ok to occupy E European countries against their will because the Nazis made it ok by occupying them before is rather alarming.

Is the standard of living for Russians better today or back when it was the USSR?
What were the freedoms and human rights like back under the USSR?
Whose fault was the stagnation of E Europe? Maybe their Russian occupiers?
Comparing living standards to the west actually supports not being occupied by the USSR.
What were the living standards and political freedoms for the E Bloc counties under the USSR?

No, you're mistaken. I said I didn't agree with the soviets occupying them after WW2 (continuously). But immedieately after WW2? Of course they should have been occupied! They were enemy states. But really they should have left when West Germany was created. Living standards in Russia today are no higher than the USSR, if anything, worse. Most Russians not only support Stalin (52%) but also want the Soviet Union back. The Russian Communist Party is one of the biggest in the world, and even Putin is somewhat sympathetic to the Soviet Union.

The stagnation of eastern europe was because they never had an industrial revolution, and were decades behind, socially and economically. It was the Russian Empire before the soviets, and the influence of the orthodox church and the general feudal system that russia had before the USSR. The USSR abolished the feudal system .That, alone, is a good thing. Also, other parts of eastern europe were occupied by the Ottomans, eastern europe has always been under the influence of one nation or the other, be it Russia or the Turks or the Byzantines/Eastern Roman empire before, as well as the Slavic and Baltic tribes that ruled.

Living standards in the eastern bloc varied, there were no political freedoms. I acknowledge this. However, there were some elections such as in the GDR to councils.

The Soviet Union that Lenin wanted was very different to what came of it.

Stalin isn't the be all and end all of communism/socialism. I am somewhat of a marxist, and having read it, his ideals were different to those of the USSR (which later adopted Marxism-Lenninism). Marx generally advocates for socialism worldwide, whereas stalin wanted it in one country. I share this view, I do think socialism should be worldwide, but the actual idea of a communist utopia is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. I'm not a communist. I'm a socialist. There is a difference between the two.

(Original post by lastlullabyy)
And excuse my laughter, but what wars would you class as “legal”? 😂 if you say “illegal wars” then surely that stipulates that some wars ARE legal... curious, how does that work?

Illegal war is like an oxymoron.

I agree with you , I’m just working within the liberal paradigm eg where it’s one rule for the West one for everyone else .

Sure there were greeks there, but it was still a nazi state. Russia still should have been there considering its overall contribution. Look at the WW2 commemorative coin. Only britain, france, and america's flag. Where is the soviet/russian flag? France surrendered after a mere six weeks. The Soviet Union pushed the nazis back to berlin. Germany lost a great deal of citizens sure, partly because of Churchill who bombed german civillian targets. The Soviets didn't do that .Yes they did mistreat some germans but overall Britain was never actually invaded by the nazis (apart from its overseas territories), unlike the soviet union which lost large swathes of its territory and lost 26 million people. Britain only lost 350K (still a huge number, but absolutely nothing compared to the russians)

(Original post by kali8603)
We do. Your country really isn't about free speech though after the Soviets, considering you've literally banned the Hammer and Sickle. Can you actually tell me about your experiences under the Polish Socialist Republic though, because all you've referenced so far is the Solidarity movement in 89', which of course was part of wider dissent in that year.

The problem is, is that there was no actual revolution in Poland, east germany, hungary etc which led to them becoming communist. these countries were effectively occupied by the soviet union. That's never a good idea. And so whilst i support the soviet union as a country, I don't support how they continued to occupy these countries.

I assume you mean Polish People’s Republic.
And I also think that you guessed that I was born after the fall of communism. So not sure what you wanted to achieve with that question. But trust me, there are enough people who lived through it from my parents, teachers, grandparents, GREAT grandparents, neighbours and everyone else who lived through it. And what do you want me to say? I didn’t just mention 1989. My parents were FORCED to learn Russian at school. You could forget getting groceries. Long queues to the shops. Absolute propaganda. Marital law and tanks on the streets in 1981... Getting arrested for nothing other than disagreeing with the establishment. Not being able to leave the country - I guess this might not make a difference to you but I moved abroad at 19. Can’t imagine NOT BEING allowed to.
How the enterprises with over 50 employees were forcibly nationslised with no compensation to their owners. How those years left Poland with huge debts which became unsustainable in 1970s and led to a sharp decline in living standards. Rationing everything from milk and bread... Maintaining highly artificial exchange rates with the West which just made the economic problems worse. The number of people who left the country due to hopelessness of living in economic and political pressures is huge.

They even placed at some point military commissioners to “watch” the work of people in eg factories.

The one singular person who I personally know who was “sad” because the communism fell was an unemployed drunk. Because yes, he was worse off after.

Before the WWII 1/3 of Polish population was ethnically diverse. As I said, I strongly disagree with the current government and a lot of its policies - as do a lot of people, at least all of my family and friends. But if it wasn’t for the WWII, if it wasn’t for the mass migration and the altered borders by Stalin, Poland probably would be a different country now - definitely a more diverse and tolerant one. This is not on USSR topic but you brought it up.

And do I think UK is a good country? Figure it out, I made a conscious decision to move here - no one forced me to. But “good” is so simplistic. Are there things I disagree with? Of course there are. Are all the people nice and welcoming? Of course they aren’t. I personally met with a lot of nationalists who abused me due to not being British over the last 6 years of living in the UK. So say what you want, but don’t equate my absolute loathing of communism to racism. As racism is something I’d never, ever agree with.

(Original post by kali8603)
Sure there were greeks there, but it was still a nazi state. Russia still should have been there considering its overall contribution. Look at the WW2 commemorative coin. Only britain, france, and america's flag. Where is the soviet/russian flag? France surrendered after a mere six weeks. The Soviet Union pushed the nazis back to berlin. Germany lost a great deal of citizens sure, partly because of Churchill who bombed german civillian targets. The Soviets didn't do that .Yes they did mistreat some germans but overall Britain was never actually invaded by the nazis (apart from its overseas territories), unlike the soviet union which lost large swathes of its territory and lost 26 million people. Britain only lost 350K (still a huge number, but absolutely nothing compared to the russians)

(Original post by lastlullabyy)
I assume you mean Polish People’s Republic.
And I also think that you guessed that I was born after the fall of communism. So not sure what you wanted to achieve with that question. But trust me, there are enough people who lived through it from my parents, teachers, grandparents, GREAT grandparents, neighbours and everyone else who lived through it. And what do you want me to say? I didn’t just mention 1989. My parents were FORCED to learn Russian at school. You could forget getting groceries. Long queues to the shops. Absolute propaganda. Marital law and tanks on the streets in 1981... Getting arrested for nothing other than disagreeing with the establishment. Not being able to leave the country - I guess this might not make a difference to you but I moved abroad at 19. Can’t imagine NOT BEING allowed to.
How the enterprises with over 50 employees were forcibly nationslised with no compensation to their owners. How those years left Poland with huge debts which became unsustainable in 1970s and led to a sharp decline in living standards. Rationing everything from milk and bread... Maintaining highly artificial exchange rates with the West which just made the economic problems worse. The number of people who left the country due to hopelessness of living in economic and political pressures is huge.

They even placed at some point military commissioners to “watch” the work of people in eg factories.

The one singular person who I personally know who was “sad” because the communism fell was an unemployed drunk. Because yes, he was worse off after.

Before the WWII 1/3 of Polish population was ethnically diverse. As I said, I strongly disagree with the current government and a lot of its policies - as do a lot of people, at least all of my family and friends. But if it wasn’t for the WWII, if it wasn’t for the mass migration and the altered borders by Stalin, Poland probably would be a different country now - definitely a more diverse and tolerant one. This is not on USSR topic but you brought it up.

And do I think UK is a good country? Figure it out, I made a conscious decision to move here - no one forced me to. But “good” is so simplistic. Are there things I disagree with? Of course there are. Are all the people nice and welcoming? Of course they aren’t. I personally met with a lot of nationalists who abused me due to not being British over the last 6 years of living in the UK. So say what you want, but don’t equate my absolute loathing of communism to racism. As racism is something I’d never, ever agree with.

No I don't think you're a racist, but Poland has unfortunately become quite racist itself, as have Hungary and most of central/eastern europe.

So did you or did you not grow up under the Polish Peoples Republic, because I believed you initially did?

"Forced" to learn Russian? Well, I learn Russian voluntarily, but we have to learn languages at school here.

Would also like to say, I am not in favour of literal Soviet-style socialism. I'm just presenting an alternative opinion. I like a hybrid model like China's, but at the same time I think china's model is too authoritarian. Like I would never ban elections. I'm a social democrat in some ways, but am more far left in others. That said, I'm only very left wing economically. Socially, I'm much more conservative, but we're not here to talk about my views.

(Original post by kali8603)
No, you're mistaken. I said I didn't agree with the soviets occupying them after WW2 (continuously). But immedieately after WW2? Of course they should have been occupied! They were enemy states. But really they should have left when West Germany was created. Living standards in Russia today are no higher than the USSR, if anything, worse. Most Russians not only support Stalin (52%) but also want the Soviet Union back. The Russian Communist Party is one of the biggest in the world, and even Putin is somewhat sympathetic to the Soviet Union.

The stagnation of eastern europe was because they never had an industrial revolution, and were decades behind, socially and economically. It was the Russian Empire before the soviets, and the influence of the orthodox church and the general feudal system that russia had before the USSR. The USSR abolished the feudal system .That, alone, is a good thing. Also, other parts of eastern europe were occupied by the Ottomans, eastern europe has always been under the influence of one nation or the other, be it Russia or the Turks or the Byzantines/Eastern Roman empire before, as well as the Slavic and Baltic tribes that ruled.

Living standards in the eastern bloc varied, there were no political freedoms. I acknowledge this. However, there were some elections such as in the GDR to councils.

The Soviet Union that Lenin wanted was very different to what came of it.

Stalin isn't the be all and end all of communism/socialism. I am somewhat of a marxist, and having read it, his ideals were different to those of the USSR (which later adopted Marxism-Lenninism). Marx generally advocates for socialism worldwide, whereas stalin wanted it in one country. I share this view, I do think socialism should be worldwide, but the actual idea of a communist utopia is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. I'm not a communist. I'm a socialist. There is a difference between the two.

1. Your point about living standards is untrue for a lot of the countries plus they had to repair a lot of the damage done to them under the years of occupation. Think you will find most of the occupied countries are doing better now as well as being democratically elected.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al)_per_capita

2. If most people want communism back then they should have no issues electing them back in and going back to the old system.

3. Eastern Europe seems to be growing OK now it is is the EU. If it was so great then why didnt E European countries stay with communism?

4. You use these arguments that because some country has invaded or occupied E Europe then its ok to continue that way. Perhaps they want to be independent and control their own borders. That way they can decide what system they want.

5. Tell us the countries where communism is working, they have a decent standard of living and that doesnt rely on capitalism.

(Original post by 999tigger)
1. Your point about living standards is untrue for a lot of the countries plus they had to repair a lot of the damage done to them under the years of occupation. Think you will find most of the occupied countries are doing better now as well as being democratically elected.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al)_per_capita

2. If most people want communism back then they should have no issues electing them back in and going back to the old system.

3. Eastern Europe seems to be growing OK now it is is the EU. If it was so great then why didnt E European countries stay with communism?

4. You use these arguments that because some country has invaded or occupied E Europe then its ok to continue that way. Perhaps they want to be independent and control their own borders. That way they can decide what system they want.

5. Tell us the countries where communism is working, they have a decent standard of living and that doesnt rely on capitalism.

Very nicely put. When I was growing up, there was such a noticeable difference in growth of Western regions of Poland and Eastern ones. Only quite recently it started to even out. No brainer what caused it.

(Original post by kali8603)
No, but neither did Slovakia or Greece. Even Germany was there, the actual country we were fighting against.

The majority of troops who landed on the D-Day beaches were from the United Kingdom, Canada and the US. However, troops from many other countries participated in D-Day and the Battle of Normandy: Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Poland.